THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 252/2010.
Wednesday, the 27th day of July , 2011
Petitioner : Sunny Isaac Thomas,
Charivuparampil
C N I Hills,
Chalukunnu,
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Mr. Tengguo wu
Director,
Thoshiba India Pvt. Ltd.
6F, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan
28, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi, India.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
2) Mr. Sivakumar N.
General Manager – P C Division
Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Building No. 10,
Tower – B, Phase –II
DlF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002,
Haryana, India.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
3) Mr. Ranjith Vishwanathan,
Regional Sales Manager,
Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd.,
219, Regus Centre, 3rd Floor, Altius,
Olympia Technology Park,
Sidco Industrial Estate, Guindy
Chennai – 600032, India.
(By Adv. Sony Sebastian)
4) Mr. Thomas Mathew,
Galaxy Computers,
Moulana Buildings,
Good Shepered Road, Kottayam.
5) Mr. Sooraj,
Service Manager,
Compumobiles,
Authorised Service Provider of
Thoshiba Laptops India
50/954, Near Edappally Post Office,
Edappally, Kochi – 682024.
-2-
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 05..10..2010 is as follows:
Petitioner purchased a “Toshiba made Laptop” from the 4th opposite party. He purchased the Laptop for his personal use at home. During July 2010 petitioner noticed two highly visible spots from the LCD screen of the Laptop. Petitioner informed matter to the 4th opposite party. 4th opposite party instructed the petitioner to contact the 5th opposite party the service centre. On 10..9..2010 petitioner registered complaint to the opposite party through telephone. Petitioner visited the 5th opposite party in person. Petitioner deposited the defective Lap top to the 5th opposite party. 5th opposite party informed the petitioner that there are some dead ‘pixels’ on the LCD. He promised that, the matter will be settled within 3 days after consulting with the higher authorities of the opposite party. After 5 days 5th opposite party informed the petitioner that the defect on the LCD screen will not cover by warranty offered by the company. Later on 26th September 2010 area of dead pixels increased its dimension. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in not curing the defective laptop amounts to unfair trade practice. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to replace the faulty Laptop with a defect free Laptop. Petitioner claims Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.
Opposite party 1 to 3 filed joint version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Petitioner failed to prove the manufacturing defect by way of expert opinion. Laptop of the petitioner is under an International Limited Warranty . As per the terms and conditions of ILW there is a disclaimer clause ie.,
“ The display contain an extremely large number of thin film transistors and is manufactured using high precision technology. Any small bright dots that may appear on display are an intrinsic characteristic of the manufacturing
-3-
technology.” So, there may some dead pixels which are not covered under the terms of warranty. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that the Lap top purchased by the petitioner from the 4th opposite party, manufactured by the first opposite party become defective during the warranty period. Petitioner approached the opposite party for the complaints during warranty period. Opposite party has not complied warranty condition on the excuse that the complaint shown by the Lap top is not coming under the warranty condition. The question to be decided in this case is whether the defects shown by the Lap top ie. “Dead pixel on LCD” will come under the warranty assured by the opposite party? Opposite party produced the conditions of the warranty same is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 there is a disclaimer close its states that small bright dots may appear on TFT display any small bright dots that may appear on the display are intrinsic characteristic of TFT manufacturing technology. In our view the defect shown by the Lap Top is ‘dead pixel’ on LCD. The disclaimer is for small bright dots. Opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that ‘dead pixel’ complaint shown by petitioner’s Laptop and small bright dots stated in the disclaimer are one and the same Further more, petitioner has a definite case that dead pixels in the Lap top are increasing in their dimensions. ‘Pixel’ means basic unit of composition of an image on the Laptop
-4-
monitor. If its size is increased that shows that the Laptop is defective. So, in our view the contention taken by the opposite party that there are bright small dots and same will come under disclaimer is not acceptable. Act of the opposite party in issuing the inferior quality Lap top to a consumer is definitely an unfair trade practice. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result opposite parties are ordered to give a defect free Lap top to the petitioner, by taking back the defective Lap top, to the satisfaction of the petitioner. If not possible opposite party is directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.27,900/-, the price of the lap top. Opposite parties are ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order. All opposite parties are jointly and severely liable. If the order is not complied, as ordered, petitioner is entitle for 9% interest for the award amount from the date of petition till realization
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of July, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Purchase bill.
Ext. A2: Service report
Ext. A3: Office documents.
Documents for the opposite party
Ext. B1: ILW Warranty.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
